I think maybe my definition of destroy and his definition of destroy are two different things. I have done several of these things to my Arduino and to my barebones AVR microcontroller circuits, and none of my microcontrollers has been destroyed. In two of my circuits, I exceed the specs a little bit on purpose, because it was easier for me to build it that way. My circuits are running happily along, doing their job and being useful.
Grumpy Mike would argue that they have been damaged, but the damage is imperceptible. He says the only way to detect that it has been damaged is to dismantle the chip and examine it with an electron microscope. I believe him, even though I have no way to test that assertion. But if I can't even tell if it is even damaged, I would argue that "destroy" is a rather strong action word.
Maybe it should be "5 ways to destroy and 5 ways to imperceptibly damage an Arduino."